Kerry and the media

[TomC]

While we certainly elect based on EVs, the nation pays attention to the national polls and some battleground states will break for the leader in National polls.

Dean became the frontrunner in a 10-way contest because he was polling at or slightly above 20%. Clearly with 20% support a candidate has hardly won anything.

The media that supposedly destroyed Dean gave him a free ride for AT LEAST 6 months. Without the media calling him front runner, Dean would still be polling near Kucinich's numbers. Dean's claims that the media destroyed his campaign and that the other candidates ganged up on him are petty whining. Dean railed against all of them in blanket statements about DC insiders. Did he really expect they wouldn't all respond and fight back?
"Help me Terry, they're being soooo mean!!!"

The media went overboard discussing his "scream," but they also went overboard calling Dean front runner when he polled at 20%. Further evidence that Dean's downfall is Dean's to own. The phrase "not ready for prime time" comes to mind. This became clear in the weeks before the Iowa caucus, hence, electability became important.

[TomC]

Kerry's emergence in Iowa is a testament that rank and file voters don't want the media picking a candidate for them. Kerry won despite the media showing us Dean's numbers and face for 6 months. The media didn't create Kerry's lead, Kerry's lead happened in spite of (or to spite) the media. They had pronounced him a has been.

[TomC]

Welcome back, Tcash....you never post anymore, you used to be one of our main contributors at the old board

Well, I've been doing campaign volunteering (Kerry) and GOTV stuff, so I guess I got a lot of my political chit chat in that way. Haven't had tons of spare time.

[TomC]

Welcome back, Tcash....you never post anymore, you used to be one of our main contributors at the old board

Well, I've been doing campaign volunteering (Kerry) and GOTV stuff, so I guess I got a lot of my political chit chat in that way. Haven't had tons of spare time.

Volunteering for Kerry?  

What's wrong there Smiley- you look a little sick. Been drinking your sorrows away? One shot for each state Edwards lost? Yikes, that could get ugly!

[TomC]

Kerry and Edwards are quite close on the issues. One big difference: Kerry supports free trade, Edwards does not. Throughout the 90s, Dems who supported free trade were looked at as moderate on that issue, not giving in to left leaning labor demands.

Flip flop?
Are you referring to the war? If Kerry flip flopped, so did Edwards.  Of course so did "no nation building" Bush
 
Is it that Kerry being from Mass. simply makes him more of a liberal?? That's an oversimplification I'd expect from, well...  a R ... no I can't call a fellow Democrat that.

Look, I like em both. I chose Kerry early on because I thought his military experience, his service on key committees, and, quite honestly the fact he didn't introduce TONS of bills. A few of the ones he did impressed me... grants for female operated businesses, other women's rights stuff. And clearly you don't but I prefer someone who sounds educated to someone who sounds more Average Joe. But, and I'm not saying this because Kerry is leading now, I'll support any one of the Democrats running (yes, even Sharpton) over the self-centered, power hungry, Nixon-like imbecile we've got in there now.

Have you heard the new Bush/Cheney slogan for bumper stckers?...

"Bush/Cheney...elect us this time"

[TomC]

 Edwards on the other hand seems to be a guy you could feel good having a beer with.  

Well, if that's your criteria, I guess Bush isn't quite up to the job (without going to excesses). Watch out for his pretzel eating too!

I'm not really interested in "having a beer" with the President, and I think middle America would agree in large part, they'd rather have someone with experience in national government than someone who can say "Hey, I was working class when I was a kid." On that experience, Kerry's got more; hence the "22 year voting record" you all keep bringing up.

As for the argument Kerry is too liberal, this government has never been more conservative, at least not since 1930. Democrats and Independents (and moderate GOPers) are QUITE aware of this fact. Even if he wants to, Kerry will not pull the government to a socialist, tree hugging, solar-powered state; congress won't let him. And he won't let them drive the country into too many right wing excesses. Either side can legitimately engender fear about the excesses of the other, but for the ones who already control everything, it'll be a harder sale.

[TomC]

Of course, now that the Dems have legitimized the filibuster of judges at the circuit court level

Oooooh, like 2 out of 100. That's the fear-baiting I'm talking about. Bush gets, what, 98% of his judges through and we're responsible for ending life as we know it.

[TomC]

Five at last count and not even 50 circuit judges nominated.  Of those, many have been blue slipped.

Bet it will seem a lot more important to you when your guys are the ones being blocked.

Well, we'll just do some recess appointments and bypass the  entire legislative branch. That'll be kosher, right? I mean, you're talking about eliminating checks and balances, right? Let's go to town!

[TomC]

In a different tone, I'd give up the filibuster on judges if the "recess appointment" practice can go to. Any takers?